________________
174
V. V. GOKHALE
identical with it (in shape etc.). Similarly, when bodies etc. are born or die, they cannot be considered to be identical with the Soul.
T: As in the case of a pot, a jar etc., which is being produced or destroyed, the ether does not assume the characteristics of the pot (etc.), so also the Puruşa does not assume the nature of the embodied being (lus.can = śaririn, dehin), even while in its various shapes it is being born or suffers death.
(Now,) to establish (further) this example of the ether with a view to meet a serious objection (from the adversary), it is pointed out:
Savad ekasya nānātvam ced abhedataḥ / ghatabhedena caikatvam sāmye sarvasya janmavat31 // If (an objection is raised, viz. that) the unity (of the Soul) is (here turned into) a diversity, which is evident in the multiplicity of bodies, illustrated by the ether in the pot, (we answer, that) when the pot is broken, there exists an unbroken unity of the ether). (Hence,) it is as if everything is born in a state of sameness.
T: It may be said: “Although your ether may be a unity, it is being divided into the separate, large and small pots. (Hence,) the Soul also must be like that." But, this does not stand to reason: because no distinction can exist within the ether which is occupying all the pots. The ether within a pot, which is being broken and that in another pot, which is already broken, is not different from each other. This applies to the ether in all pots alike. In a similar way, the Soul (= ātman) does not exist separately in all the embodied beings, and in spite of the multiplicity of bodies, the Soul is the same in all of them. Thus, the example of the ether in the pot has not been disproved.
30 Mc. reads: dehādyudayavyayam in (d), where dehādi corresponds to Tib. lus.can (= dehin) both in Mhk and T. Cf. AS. III. 3 and 4 (corresponding respectively to udaya and vyaya of the jiva) with further references on pp. 301-2; Brahmabindu-U. 13-14. It is made clear by Bhavya that the adversary here and in the following argument is
bhavana na webu the Buddhist (see stanza 1 above and T on 12 below). However, cf. also the Samkhyakärikā 10, which describes the characteristics of the vyakta and the avyakta, which are found mixed up here in the description of the Puruşa, i.e., his being 'active' (cf. karts in st. 3; karmakst in st. 4 etc.) and at the same time 'one' (eka in st. 7), 'eternal and omnipresent' (nitya, sarvatraga in st. 16 & T.) etc. This apparent incongruity which is sought to be removed by the Vedāntin by giving this example of the ether in the pot' (ghatākāśa) should therefore be equally objectionable to the Sāmkhya. 31 Mc. reads: deha- for ceda- in (b) and caikasya for caikatvam in (c.) Mc. being the single source for the Sanskrit text, which sometimes makes no sense, I have ventured to emend it here rather heavily. The (d) of this stanza also seems doubtful. On the basis of T I might suggest: sämyam sarvasya siddhavat (= (Hence) the state of sameness of everything is as good as proved).
